PC R 93-1427Y.: .
RFSOLUTION NO. 93-1427
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A
VARIANCE, CASE NO. 93-178, APPLIED FOR BY
COASTAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL AT 207 PILGRIM WAY,
FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIItEMENT THAT A
TIME EXTENSION BE FILED 30 DAYS PRIOR TO
EXPIRATION OF A PERMIT OR APPROVAL AND FROM
THE LIMIT ON LENGTH AND NUMBER OF TIME
EXTENSIONS ALLOWED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CODE
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered
Variance Application No. 93-178, filed by Coastal Christian School, for a variance from the
requirement that a time extension be filed 30 days prior to expiration of a permit or approval
and from the limit on length and number of time extensions allowed by the Development Code
at 207 Pilgrim Way, in the Public and Quasi-Public Facilities District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing on this application in
accordance with the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that this project is consistent with the
General Plan and the Environmental documents associated therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that a Negative Declaration
can be adopted, and instructs the Secretary to file a Notice of Determination; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commis`sion finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing, the following circumstances exist: ,
Variance Findings
1. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result
in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not otherwise shared by others in the
sunounding area. Specifically, the project would be required to start over through the
permitting process.
2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to
other properties classified in the same zone. The applicant was aware of the procedure
for applying for a time extension under the old zoning ordinance and complied with that
procedure, however, the applicant was not aware that the Development Code had
changed the procedure.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in the
same zone.
The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone.
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The granting of a variance is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General
Plan and the intent of this title.
Department of Fish and Game Required Findings:
1. The City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an initial study pursuant to Section 15063 of
the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act for Variance Case No. 93-
178, Extension of Time for Conditional Use Permit Case No. 88-437.
2. Based on the initial study, a negative declaration was prepared for review by the public
and review and approval by the Planning Commission.
Resolution No. 93-1427
Variance Case No. 93-178
Coastal Christian School
August 17, 1993
Page 2
3. After holding a public hearing pursuant to State and City Codes, and considering the
record as a whole, the Planning Commission adopted the negative declaration and found
that there is no substantial evidence of any significant adverse effect, either individually
or on the habitat upon which the wildlife depends as a result of development of this
project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City
of Arroyo Grande hereby adopts a negative declaration, instructs the Secretary to file a Notice
of Determination; and approves said variance, subject to the following conditions:
General Conditions
1
2.
3.
The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements
as are applicable to this project.
This application shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the first regular
meeting in July, 1998 and at five year intervals thereafter.
The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for CUP 88-437.
4. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the
City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in
the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its
agents, officers, or employers, for any court costs and attorney's fee's which the City,
its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such
action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense
of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations
under this condition.
Planning Department Conditions
5. Development shall conform with the PF zoning requirements unless otherwise
approved.
Fire Department Conditions
6. Both locations must comply with State Fire Marshal and State Building Code
requirements related to handicap accessibility, emergency lighting, and construction.
7. Both locations shall obtain a Fire Department approved key vault.
On motion of Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and on the following roll
call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Reilly, Deviny and Chairman Can
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Hatchett and Keen
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 17th day of August, 1993.
ATTEST:
�
�
Nancy Brown, mmission Clerk Robert W.' Carr, Chairman